San Francisco may outlaw circumcision.

VeronicaF · 29-11-10 04:43:01

viva wrote:

and what will be the penalty for an at home bris performed by a mohel? do you lose your child?

Yes

viva wrote:

it's easy for atheistic or non-religious people to just say that "religions can alter their belief systems." There are epistemological values that remain valid even though you cannot quantify them based on your own personal systems of belief.

Agreed, however, if an individual's belief is that they were asked by god to do away with all other living entities and as a result they will reach a higher level of enlightenment we would probably diagnose them as bat shit crazy. Just because a religion has time behind it does not make it worthy of respect. Personally I find the idea of taking a moderate stance on religion or atheism kind of odd...If you truly believe something why would you not follow this belief the whole way? That's not to say I condone all religious extremists.

viva wrote:

Certainly hospitals should not perform circumcisions, as the circumcise-everybody movement was born out of a germaphobic and uneducated era, and as Shara says there is no reason for doctors to perform an unnecessary operation.

Maybe I'm simply one of this movement but again I disagree. Modern medicine exists for a reason, it's generally fairly reliable. I find similar arguments coming from those who swear by herbal treatments but you know what they call herbal treatments that work? Medicine.

viva · 29-11-10 05:39:15

von, i fuckin love you.

if an individual's belief is that they were asked by god to do away with all other living entities and as a result they will reach a higher level of enlightenment we would probably diagnose them as bat shit crazy.

this is true. as you've pointed out this type of thinking is called religious zealotry or extremism and we don't really accept religion as an excuse to kill or hurt people. these kinds of crimes are called hate crimes and are based on intolerance. circumcision is a different question. if you believe that hospitals and modern medicine are the be-all end-all for procedures and that they are "fairly reliable" you are saying that when they perform circumcisions, it is not mutilation. therefore circumcision performed as part of a religious ceremony also cannot be called mutilation or religious extremism.

i obviously do not agree with your level of trust in the government or medicine - modern science is one thing, hospitals are another. I come from a place where hospitals are not only subject to the fervor and overreactions of individuals educated by fearTV (ie foxnews etc), but are controlled privately and fueled by capitalism. This means that medicine that makes money is practiced, not necessarily what works or is the most practical. Unfortunately, the way people choose to spend their money is more likely to be based on snap judgments and propaganda than on reasoned empirical thought.

Therefore, I prefer to make my own judgments and not be told by the government what I can and cannot do except in extreme cases. We are preaching to each others' choirs a bit there as I do understand that responsibility I take on by simply by deciding where I live. I am the kind of person that would rather give birth aided by a trained professional, but perhaps not in a hospital setting unless there were severe complications. And if I were told that all baby boys are circumcised at hospital, I would refuse their care even if it meant risking my life or my child's life (spaghetti monster forbid) because, for me, security is not worth the loss of certain liberties (see: our ongoing TSA debate)

This is not a debate about whether modern medicine and religion are valid or not. This is about circumcision. Is it evil?
v

Last edited by viva (29-11-10 06:27:58)

VeronicaF · 29-11-10 08:16:58

viva wrote:

If you believe that hospitals and modern medicine are the be-all end-all for procedures and that they are "fairly reliable" you are saying that when they perform circumcisions, it is not mutilation. therefore circumcision performed as part of a religious ceremony also cannot be called mutilation or religious extremism.

That's not entirely true. I suggested that in regards to circumcision modern medicine is the lesser of two evils. If someone were to kidnap me and steal my kidneys I'd prefer it were a surgeon than a butcher.
I believe circumcision is unneccessary and in some cases, when not performed correctly (and in my opinion that involves a sterile environment) yes it is mutilation. In an ideal world I would put it in the same place as piercing, tattoos and boob jobs. Something that people can elect to do but don't have to. It should be heavily monitored and only performed by those trained to do so.

I also think that, considering it is a permanent procedure, a parent making that decision for a child is not ok. It should be left to the individual at a responsible age. At the moment in Australia that age tends to be considered 18 but obviously that too could be up for debate.

nazgard · 03-06-13 01:31:08

I have to say being in america growing up I thought I was cool for being uncunt. Maybe someday being cut will be considered rare... anyway all penises are uniquely beautiful and have their own stories

does anyone know if this became law or did this get resolved somehow?

#26 29-11-10 04:43:01

Re: San Francisco may outlaw circumcision.

#27 29-11-10 05:39:15

Re: San Francisco may outlaw circumcision.

#28 29-11-10 08:16:58

Re: San Francisco may outlaw circumcision.

#29 03-06-13 01:31:08

Re: San Francisco may outlaw circumcision.

Board footer